MINUTES SRIEG-33
CROP VARIETY TESTING
Charleston, SC
February 28 –March 1, 2001

CO-CHAIRS –Kelly Whiting, Delta and Pine Land Co.,
Dewey Barefield, Clemson University
SECRETARY - Doyce Graham, Clemson U.
TREASURER - Debra Ahrent, U. of Arkansas
CSREES REPRESENTATIVE – Preston Jones, Washington, DC
ADMINISTRATIVE ADVISOR - Vance Watson, Mississippi State U.

INTRO. AND COMMENTS
Kelly Whiting gave a short intro for the meeting with details of registration and meeting rooms. Kind assistance with registration by Debra Ahrent was noted.

Vance Watson again detailed the unique partnership of public and private entities in our IEG compared to all of the other IEG. He also commended all parties and participants in how well the concept is working and the cooperation displayed by all. Our IEG has several unique aspects such as our partnership with companies, members outside our region, awards program, co-chairs, and first to have web page.

Anna Marie Rasberry brought greeting from Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors. Report from our meeting will be made available to member Directors and will reflect impacts on stakeholders and chart attendance at SRIEG-33.

DIRECTORY UPDATE - Directory is now kept at the web site for SRIEG-33 listed above. It is vital that corrections and updates to personnel should be reported to Patsy Sykes in Vance Watson's office at Mississippi State.

New Regulations that affect field placement, testing, and Sale of Transgenic Varieties.
-Walter Mayhew, Monsanto

Bowman noted in discussion that ASA will sponsor symposium on GMO and Variety testing at the October annual meetings in Charlotte, NC.

Enhancing the Standing and Recognition of Variety Testing.
-Vance Watson, Mississippi State University

Steps to keep Station Director informed and involved in the variety testing program via regular updates, field days, and evaluation sessions were indicated. The following were emphasized as components of good variety test approaches. Timeliness in planting, harvesting, and publication. Mississippi State University has a quality assurance programs in place that involves advisory groups made up of various stakeholders. Best sites in the state are chosen as opposed to a site on say a branch station. Advocacy groups such as private sector partners, producers, promotion boards, and scientists are included in the variety testing process. Multiple delivery points such as print, electronic, and other media are good ways to spread the word about variety testing.

How Variety Data is Used and Evaluated by the Public User.
-Birdie Crosby, Dorchester County agent, South Carolina
-Jay Crouch, Newberry County, South Carolina

Both agents were constant consumers of variety test data. Their approach was to pull data from web site as soon as it became available for a crop in a particular season. Each agent has a mailing list of active growers who depend on agent for discussions and assistance with variety selection. Multiyear data is emphasized in various interactions with growers. Spirited discussion ensued about data use and what was good data.

Establishing a Multi-State Database
- Marc Bates, Delta & Pine Land Co.

H2H, Head to Head is a database approach by D&PL to enhance delivery of data about varieties from large array of sources. D&PL was looking for any data source they could find and offered to include data in their H2H. Technology has shortened variety life cycle and DP&L has developed this technology tool for better evaluating varieties. Demos were performed with random soybean varieties utilizing a range of the features of H2H including several filters.

-Clarence Watson, Mississippi State University
Various information items were listed and discussed as they are presented in variety test publications. Such items as soil test, soil pH, fertilizer added, herbicide used, etc were some items covered in discussion.

-Al Hoggoard, Garst Seed Co.
A series of handouts with measured traits for various crops were presented that Garst uses in their database to develop information for variety testing, selection, and sales.

Utilizing Computer Modeling in Variety Selection.
- Ken Boote, University of Florida.

There is interest in using dynamic crop growth simulation models to assist producers with management decision making, and to better understand crop response to cultivar, weather, soils, and crop management practices. Before using crop growth models for such purposes, it is necessary to have genetic coefficients for new cultivars as soon as they are marketed. These genetic coefficients describe how a cultivar divides up its life cycle into vegetative and reproductive phases and produces its grain yield, and how its life cycle and productivity respond to daylength, climatic, and management factors.

In research funded by the United Soybean Board, we developed procedures for solving genetic coefficients for life cycle and yield potential from soybean variety performance trials conducted by state, regional, and commercial firms. Yield trial information, such as maturity date, along with weather and soil data for trial sites, was used with the CROPGRO-soybean model in an optimization program, to solve for critical daylength parameters as well as life cycle phase durations. Yield variation among cultivars within a site, was used to adjust two types of yield-influencing traits such as photosynthesis and internal shifts in life cycle to increase grain-fill duration. Our project developed and then tested the procedures with yield trial data on soybean from Georgia, North Carolina, Illinois, Northern Regional Trials, and Deltapine. Typically there were 20 to 30 site-year combinations per cultivar. The procedures were successful in solving traits capable of accurately predicting soybean maturity for the different cultivars to within 3 to 4 days, and predicting grain yield to within about 10%. Traits for predicting maturity were quite stable and repeatable, as we showed that we could solve for traits for a cultivar with data from Georgia and then use it to predict maturity date in North Carolina for the same cultivar. Traits for cultivar differences in yield potential were not as stable from one state to the next, yet we were able to correctly predict yield rankings in most cases for a set of cultivars in North Carolina, based on traits solved from trials in Georgia.

Yield trial data is now available electronically on web sites along with site management data. Various spreadsheet programs are being developed for comparing varieties across sites and states. The software developed by our project will take this same electronic trial data, adapt it for use with the crop model, add weather and soils information accessible from the web, and compute genetic coefficients. We believe this will create added value to the yield trial data already collected. Those interested in using this software are encouraged to contact K. J. Boote or J. W. Jones at the University of Florida or Gail Wilkerson at North Carolina State University.

Such items as varieties that have been dropped from sales list and lines that have become varieties. This information will be collected and put on the web site. Updating the web site information for contacts at both companies and universities was emphasized. Please contact Ms. Patsy Sykes directly to do the updates for contacts.

Co-chairs Whiting and Barefield and Treasurer Ahrent provided excellent leadership and service with respect to finances, program, and facilities. The group offers our thanks and appreciation to them and Director Watson.

Recipient of the 2001 Service Award is Al Hoggard of Garst Seed Co. Al has been long time member and contributor to SRIEG-33 meetings. He has been a co-chair. When the meetings have been in Memphis, he has provided excellent liaison and assistance to chairs. SRIEG-33 is proud to present him with the plaque indicating the award. We know that he is deserving and will continue to be an asset to SRIEG-33.

2002 Co-chairs - Steve Moore, LSU and Walter Mayhew, Monsanto

2003 Co-chairs - Daryl Bowman, N. C. State University and Frank Patton, Pioneer Hi-Bred.